U.S. Deportment

of Transportation

Federal Rallraad

Administration

JUl 14 llXll

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

Chairman .

Committee on Appropriations

U.S. Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chainnan:

The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2008 (Division K of Pub. L. 110-161) requires the Federal Railroad

Administrator to "submit a report, and quarterly reports thereafter, to the House and

Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing the Administrator's efforts at improving

the on-time performance ofAmtrak intercity rail service operating on non-Amtrak owned

property. Such reports shall compare the most recent actual on-time perfonnance data to

pre-established on-time perfonnance goals that the Administrator shall set for each rail

service, identified by route. Such reports shall also include whatever other infonnation

and data regarding the on-time perfonnance of Amtrak. trains the Administrator deems to

be appropriate."

This Icttcr constitutes the sewnd report under this mandate. Building upon our first

report, it includes two sections: (I) an update on recent Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA) efforts to improve Amtrak's on-time perfonnance (OTP); and (2) a description of

our initial approach to establishing OTP goals on a route-by-route basis, together with a

table displaying current results for each route.

(1) Update: Recent OTP Improvement Action!

Soutbeast Corridor. Promising results continue to accrue from the Southeast (1-95)

Corridor Perfonnance Improvement Plan that the FRA required as part of our Fiscal Year

(FY) 2007 Grant Agreement with Amtrak. In FY 2008 thus far, CSX freight train

interference delays affecting the Southeast Corridor long distance trains have fallen to

about three minutes per 100 train miles, thus contributing to an OTP improvement on this

route. For example, the Auto Train's endpoint OTP is up to 80.5 percent from 52.1

percent a year ago, and the OTP ofother long distance trains on this corridor has

increased to 53.8 percent from 33 percent the previous year. Further OTP improvements

on the Southeast Corridor will depend on CSX's ability to reduce slow order delays: at

present, slow orders amount to 4.7 minutes per 100 train miles.

Californja Zephyr. Building on the encouraging Southeast Corridor results, the Union

Pacific Railroad (UP) and Amtrak last year reached an agreement to decrease slow orders

Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE

Was.'1lngloo. DC 20590
Page 2 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

on the California Zephyr. UP is following through on this commitment; however, 

performance against schedule remains below the agreed standard. The cause of this 

deficiency is attributed to freight interference in Colorado; Amtrak is in ongoing 

discussions with UP about this issue. 

Additional Performance Improvement Programs. At the Pueblo, Colorado meeting 

on April 16, 2008 (described in our May 8, 2008 OTP report), Secretary of 

Transportation Mary E. Peters requested Amtrak and the major host freight railroads to 

identify one route on each respective railroad for improved OTP. Amtrak and the host 

railroads have commenced acting on the Secretary’s initiative. 

To date, agreements have been reached with host railroads as follows: 

 CSX: Southeast Corridor (ongoing initiative, described above) 

 NS: Chicago–Porter, Indiana 

 CP: Adirondack (Schenectady, New York–Rouses Point, New York)

 CN: Chicago–Carbondale, Illinois 

 BNSF: California Zephyr (the Chicago–Denver portion of the route1

) 

 UP: Chicago–St. Louis (all trains), followed by the St. Louis–San 

Antonio Texas Eagle route. 

(2) Goals and Route Performance 

In evaluating route-by-route OTP, two questions arise: 

• Has the route’s performance improved?⎯and 

• What is an appropriate set of longer-term and milestone targets? 

Ascertaining Progress 

For the purpose of ascertaining progress, no single measure captures long-term trends in 

train performance and the traveling public’s current perception of that performance.2 As 

a result, the FRA has adopted, as an interim approach, a two-step test based on percent on 

time and effective speed. 

Test 1: Percent On Time

Percent on time is a straightforward statistic that indicates the proportion of each route’s 

trains that arrive on time at their endpoint terminals. This simple measure requires no 

elaborate interpretation for the traveling public, which readily perceives whether arrivals 

are “on time” or “late.” 

 

1

 On the segment of the California Zephyr between Denver and the San Francisco Bay Area, the UP is the 

host railroad; OTP efforts on the UP segment are described further above. 

2

 Our prior report in this series contained a detailed review of the strengths and weaknesses of the available 

performance measures. 
Page 3 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Tolerances. We intend to continue using the tolerances promulgated by the Interstate 

Commerce Commission (ICC) for lateness (see Annex A); these ICC tolerances already 

provide the basis for Amtrak’s public OTP reports and align with procedures applied in 

other modes of transportation (e.g., the airlines3

). At some future time, when intercity 

passenger rail becomes a consistently reliable mode of transportation in all corridors of 

the Nation, it would be desirable to consider imposing the higher standard of “zero 

tolerance” for lateness, which in today’s circumstances would be an unrealistic, 

discouraging impediment to progress. 

Endpoint Versus All-Station Percent On Time. As we mentioned in our first OTP 

report, percent on time reflects only the performance of a route at its endpoints. In the 

typical train schedule, Amtrak adds most of the “recovery time” toward the endpoint; this 

scheduling practice sometimes allows trains that are late at intermediate stops to arrive on 

time at their terminus and thus to be considered “on time” overall. Most passengers on a 

typical Amtrak route are not traveling exclusively between the route’s endpoints; for 

example, the Southwest Chief serves 33 stations that can be combined into over 500 citypairs. Thus, the endpoint percent on time statistic is not necessarily representative of the 

punctuality or tardiness actually experienced by most of a route’s passengers. 

One option for providing greater insight on train performance over the course of an entire 

route is to calculate the percent on time based on arrivals and departures at all stations, 

not just the endpoints. We are currently assessing the feasibility of adopting this allstation approach in future reports of this series, either as the principal or as a 

supplementary reporting mechanism. 

Making use of the Southwest Chief as an example, Table 1 illustrates the significant 

difference that can exist between endpoint and all-station percent on time. 

Table 1: Comparison of All Stations and Endpoint OTP 

Southwest Chief for Example

Jun 2006 - June 2007 - 

 May 2007 May 2008 

All Stations Percent On Time 45% 44% 

Endpoint Percent On Time 67% 66% 

 

Test 2: Effective Speed 

An improvement in simple OTP does not confirm whether a route’s performance has 

actually improved, because better OTP may result from a lengthened train schedule that 

may effectively represent a deterioration in the transportation product offered to the 

passenger. 

 

3 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers a flight "on time" if it is less than 15 minutes late 

to the arrival gate according to the scheduled time shown in the carriers' Computerized Reservations 

Systems (CRS). Cancelled and diverted flights are not considered on-time arrivals. 
Page 4 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Example A (Hypothetical): 

In 2007, a given train was scheduled to travel from City A to City B (1,000 miles) in 15 

hours and had an OTP of 50 percent. The average train was 30 minutes late, so that the 

effective running time was 15 hours 30 minutes. 

In 2008, one hour was added to the schedule (now 16 hours), and OTP attained 75 percent. 

The average train was now 15 minutes late, so that the effective running time was now 16 

hours, 15 minutes. 

The effective trip time experienced by the public has deteriorated by 45 minutes, while the 

OTP improved by 15 points. 

Thus the cost of the OTP improvement was a degradation in travel time. The lengthened 

schedule provides a more realistic representation of the train’s trip time; however, because 

riders now face a longer effective trip time, OTP has not progressed in this situation. 

To control for the possibility cited in Example A, we propose to introduce a new 

measure⎯change in effective speed⎯into the assessment of a route’s progress or regress 

over time. Effective speed is the route’s mileage divided by the effective travel time, 

which in turn is the scheduled travel time plus the average minutes of endpoint terminal 

lateness per train operation. A finding of progress, then, requires a route’s OTP to 

have improved and its effective speed to have improved or stayed constant. 

In Example A above, the effective speeds were: 

In 2007, 15 hours 30 minutes divided into 1,000 miles = 64.5 mph 

In 2008, 16 hours 15 minutes divided into 1,000 miles = 61.5 mph 

Effective speed declined 3 mph, hence no finding of progress in OTP 

Under this approach, it will still be possible for Amtrak and the freight railroads to 

improve OTP while increasing scheduled running times, as long as the effective running 

times are held constant or reduced. This in fact occurred in the case of the Auto Train, 

which from FY 2006 to FY 2008 improved its OTP and reduced its effective running 

times, thus scoring tangible progress in OTP: 

Example B (Actual⎯Auto Train): 

In FY 2006, the Auto Train was scheduled to travel its 855 mile route between Lorton, 

Virginia and Sanford, Florida in 16 hours 30 minutes. The average train was 2 hours and 

13 minutes late, so the effective running time was 18 hours 43 minutes (producing an 

effective speed of 46 MPH). In FY 2006 the Auto Train’s OTP was 17 percent. 

By FY 2008, Amtrak and CSX had cooperated in adding an hour to the Auto Train’s 

schedule (now 17 hours 30 minutes), and OTP was 83 percent (through April). The 

average train is now only 20 minutes late, so the effective running time is now 17 hours 50 

minutes (producing an effective speed of 48 MPH). 

Thus, in the case of the Auto Train in FY 2008 versus FY 2006, OTP tangibly improved: 

Percent on time rose by 66 points and the effective speed increased by 2 MPH. With 

discipline, judiciously lengthened schedules can benefit OTP while improving overall train 

performance. 

Proposed FY 2012 Goals and Nearer-Term Targets 

FRA has met with the senior management of each of the Class I freight railroads and 

Amtrak to discuss the challenges and opportunities to improve OTP. In addition, in 
Page 5 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

response to the Congressional mandate for this report, the FRA has set interim route-byroute goals for OTP, based on a five-year time horizon. These interim goals reflect our 

independent staff appraisal of what would constitute a challenging yet potentially 

achievable increment over actual FY 2007 performance. 

For each of the three basic types of service that Amtrak operates,4 these goals would 

establish a percent on time to be met by FY 2012 on all routes. (This five-year time 

horizon reflects the realities that OTP improvements in a capacity- constrained system 

take time, and that the imposition of unachievable goals for FY 2008 or FY 2009 would 

most likely be counterproductive.) Then, for each route, the percent on time actually 

achieved in FY 2007 is subtracted from the FY 2012 goal for the applicable service type. 

The difference, divided by five (i.e., the five years from FY 2008 through FY 2012), is 

the annual progress in percent on time to be achieved on each route. 

The proposed FY 2012 goal and FY 2007 actual percent on time for each of the three 

service types are shown below: 

FY 2007 Interim 

Service Type Percent On Time FY 2012 Goal 

Northeast Corridor 81% 95% 

Other Corridors 68% 90% 

Long Distance 42% 85% 

 

Example C summarizes the process that is proposed for establishing targets for each of 

the intermediate years for progress on individual routes. 

Example C: Goal Development by Route 

The Illinois Zephyr falls within the “Other Corridors” service type, which has an OTP goal 

of 90 percent for FY 2012. 

In FY 2007, the Illinois Zephyr had OTP of 65.2 percent. 

The difference between the FY 2012 goal and the FY 2007 performance is 24.8 percent. 

The expected yearly improvement would then be 24.8 percent divided by 5 years, or 5.0 

percent. 

Thus, the target for FY 2008 would be 65.2 percent plus 5.0 percent, or 70.2 percent; for 

FY 2009, 70.2 plus 5.0 percent, or 75.1 percent (slight discrepancies are due to rounding); 

and so forth for subsequent years until the FY 2012 goal is reached. 

The report that results from the above interim methodology is appended as Annex B. In 

this example, a 60 percent minimum target for FY 2008 is assumed for Long Distance 

trains, and a 70 percent minimum target is assumed for State Corridor/Short Distance 

 

4 Amtrak operates three basic types of service: 

• Northeast Corridor main line services: High-speed, high-frequency services, some of which reach top speeds 

of 125 mph and more, between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington (Acela and Regional trains). 

• Other corridor services: Short-distance services⎯mostly under 500 miles⎯in heavily populated regions of the 

country such as the West Coast, the Chicago region, extensions of the NEC main line, and certain other highvolume corridors; most of these routes are State-subsidized. 

• Long-distance services: Fifteen routes, of which all but one involve overnight and two-night trips. Most routes 

radiate from Chicago; others serve the West and East Coasts, or link New Orleans with Los Angeles and the 

Northeast. 
Page 6

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

trains. In future reports, we intend to expand Annex B to include infonnation that we

believe would afford the Committee a more comprehensive picture of Amtrak's

OTP-for example, the minutes of delay per 10,000 train-miles, categorized as "host

railroad-caused" versus "Amtrak-caused"; and (as described above) a more inclusive

OIP measure that would capture lateness at intennediate stations.

The accurate measurement and steady improvement ofintercity passenger trains' OTP is

an important and current topic, as the Congressional requirement for the present report

makes clear. OTP has long-term effects on both passenger revenues and operating

expenses, nol to mention Amtrak's reputation with the traveling public. For these

reasons, the FRA will continue to refine its methodologies and data presentations, in

cooperation with Amtrak and other stakeholders to the extent possible. We will also

continue vigorously to pursue our efforts to catalyze OTP improvements through joint

aclions by the freight railroads and Amtrak.

I hope that the infonnation contained in this report will assist the Committee in its work,

and look forward to providing follow-on reports on OTP as specified in the 2008

Appropriations Act.

Identical letters have been sent to the Ranking Member ofthe Senate Committee on

Appropriations. and to the Chairman and Ranking Member ofthe House Committee on

Appropriations.

A achments
Page 7 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Annex A: 

ICC-Issued On-Time Performance Tolerances

ICC On-Time Performance 

Tolerances 

Trip Length Tolerances

(Miles) (Minutes)

0 - 250 10 

251 - 350 15 

351 - 450 20 

451 - 550 25 

551 or more 

miles 30 

Please Note: Amtrak continues to apply the ICC tolerances shown above, except that all 

Acela trains have a 10-minute tolerance regardless of run length. 
Page 8 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

 Annex B

Amtrak On-Time Performance: FY 2008 

Year to Date Totals through May 2008 

Both Tests Met Test 1: Test 2:

for OTP Higher Percent On Time Constant or Better 

Progress? YTD - May 2008 vs. YTD - May 2007 Effective Speed 

Variance 

FY 2008 Change Proposed from 

Percent from Target for FY 2008 Change in MPH from

Service Type/Route Yes No On Time FY 2007 FY 2008 Target Baseline 

Northeast Corridor Service (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 95%)

Acela X 84.5% (3.7%) 89.2% (4.8%) (0.4) 

Regional Service X 77.2% (1.4%) 81.4% (4.1%) (0.2) 

Short Distance/Corridor Trains (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 90%. Minimum target proposed for FY 2008: 70%)

Adirondack X 47.5% 33.0% 70.0% (22.5%) 1.8 

Blue Water X 30.3% (2.0%) 70.0% (39.7%) 0.1 

Capitols X 86.7% 15.0% 77.7% 9.1% 0.9 

Carolinian X 44.8% 13.7% 70.0% (25.2%) 2.0 

Cascades X 65.8% 7.4% 70.0% (4.2%) (1.2) 

Downeaster X 74.0% (11.5%) 80.4% (6.3%) (0.5) 

Empire Service X 73.7% (0.9%) 75.4% (1.6%) (0.1) 

Ethan Allen Express X 32.6% (12.8%) 70.0% (37.4%) 0.4 

Heartland Flyer X 51.8% 18.2% 70.0% (18.2%) 2.2 

Hiawatha X 86.3% (0.7%) 89.3% (3.0%) (0.8) 

Hoosier State X 42.3% 5.5% 70.0% (27.7%) 0.3 

Illini X 51.7% (17.9%) 73.2% (21.4%) (1.8) 

Illinois Zephyr X 79.4% 20.0% 70.2% 9.3% 1.3 

Keystone X 87.8% 5.1% 86.3% 1.5% 0.5 

Lincoln Service X 47.5% 3.2% 70.0% (22.5%) 0.2 

Maple Leaf X 45.9% 5.0% 70.0% (24.1%) 1.1 

Missouri Services X 18.2% (13.8%) 70.0% (51.8%) (0.3) 

Pacific Surfliner X 77.6% 1.4% 77.8% (0.3%) 0.1 

Pennsylvanian X 89.8% 21.2% 75.2% 14.5% 1.0 

Pere Marquette X 26.0% 3.4% 70.0% (44.0%) 0.2 

Piedmont X 78.2% 5.3% 77.5% 0.7% 0.5 

San Joaquins X 85.2% 16.9% 72.4% 12.9% 1.7 

Vermonter X 33.2% (47.3%) 70.0% (36.8%) (1.0) 

Wolverines X 29.7% (5.9%) 70.0% (40.3%) (0.3) 

Long Distance Trains (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 85%. Minimum target proposed for FY 2008: 60%)

Auto Train X 80.5% 28.5% 66.7% 13.8% 1.2 

California Zephyr X 37.3% 37.3% 60.0% (22.7%) 3.1 

Capitol Limited X 40.2% 25.0% 60.0% (19.8%) 2.3 

Cardinal X 38.3% (0.2%) 60.0% (21.7%) (0.7) 

City of New Orleans X 73.8% (13.1%) 85.0% (11.2%) (0.6) 

Coast Starlight X 69.4% 49.0% 60.0% 9.4% 1.5 

Crescent X 72.1% 28.7% 60.0% 12.1% 1.0 

Empire Builder X 69.9% (5.3%) 75.7% (5.8%) (0.2) 

Lake Shore Limited X 58.0% 28.9% 60.0% (2.0%) 2.7 

Palmetto X 57.2% 29.0% 60.0% (2.8%) 3.6 

Silver Meteor X 68.0% 22.6% 60.0% 8.0% 1.9 

Silver Star X 45.3% 18.1% 60.0% (14.7%) 0.6 

Southwest Chief X 74.1% 8.1% 65.1% 9.0% 0.4 

Sunset Limited X 22.6% 4.3% 60.0% (37.4%) 1.3 

Texas Eagle X 23.8% (8.7%) 60.0% (36.2%) (0.3)